This is an Open Access document downloaded from ORCA, Cardiff University's institutional

repository: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/117305/

This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted to / accepted for publication.

Citation for final published version:

Flynn, Andrew and Hacking, Nick 2019. Setting standards for a circular economy: A challenge too

far for neoliberal environmental governance? Journal of Cleaner Production 212 , pp. 1256-1267.

10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.257 file

Publishers page: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.257

<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.257>

Please note:

Changes made as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing, formatting and page

numbers may not be reflected in this version. For the definitive version of this publication, please

refer to the published source. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite

this paper.

This version is being made available in accordance with publisher policies. See

http://orca.cf.ac.uk/policies.html for usage policies. Copyright and moral rights for publications

made available in ORCA are retained by the copyright holders.

1

Setting Standards for a Circular Economy: A Challenge Too Far for Neoliberal

Environmental Governance?

2

Abstract

National and regional governments around the world are steering actors in the waste and

resources management industry towards a more circular economy (CE). Such a hoped-for

transition is set against a backdrop of neoliberal environmental governance. The private sector

increasingly delivers outcomes via public-private initiatives. Similarly, voluntary quality

assurance standards covering flows of waste and resources around the globe are increasingly

central to markets and trade. The role of standards in contemporary environmental

governance is critically reassessed by examining how they are involved in the upscaling or

down-scaling of markets. This analysis matters to understanding how the CE is conceptualised

at a range of scales and how neoliberal environmental governance can help or hinder CE

development. To overcome the paucity of data on how and why public and private sector

actors set and use voluntary standards for material flows, twenty-eight key actor interviews

with those involved in standard setting and the CE in Europe are drawn upon. Results suggest

that proponents of standards and the CE see the raising of the quality of recycled material as

central to building up confidence and trust in existing and emerging markets. However, others

suggest markets will always privilege cost over quality and that standards are peripheral. For

the CE transition to accelerate, this research suggests that policy instruments like standards

need to challenge existing neoliberal market relations rather than simply follow them.

Keywords: Circular Economy, Standards, Waste, Resources, Neoliberalism, Governance

3

1.0 Introduction

A global crisis in waste and resources management has been steadily building over the last

three decades (Tammemagi, 1999, Rhyner et al., 2017). Traditional options for waste disposal

- landfilling and incineration - cannot keep pace with constantly rising volumes of waste

production particularly in developing countries (Orlu et al., 2017). There are ever-increasing

normative moves towards achieving a Circular Economy (CE) but in its early stages of

development the understanding of a CE is highly contested (Kirchherr et al, 2017, Homrich et

al, 2017, Velte et al, 2018). In their review of multiple definitions of the CE Kirchherr et al (2017

229) concluded that the term needed to encompass:

“an economic system that replaces the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively

reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption

processes. It [the CE] operates at [multiple levels] with the aim to accomplish sustainable

development … It is enabled by novel business models and responsible consumers.”

Much of the debate and interpretation of the CE therefore takes place within the parameters

outlined by Kirchherr et al (2017). This inclusive approach is helpful because it enables an

exploration of how and why CE may matter to key actors and of the leading narratives on the

CE that emerge.

The drive for sustainable change has been accelerating at a range of scales from the local to

the global (Ghisellini et al., 2016). However, achieving transitional change in waste and

resources governance via CE principles involves more than finding ways to better quantify

waste and resource flows. There is also a need to ask more fundamental questions about who

is advocating the CE, which narratives they are using, and which factors will help and hinder

its adoption (Gregson et al, 2015). The extent of the adoption of environmental standards, and

hence their legitimacy, has important implications for normative moves towards developing a

CE at a range of scales. Standards are typically understood as providing rules that govern

behaviour, processes or practices in the market place. Standards are nominally voluntary but

supply chain actors, or other key actors, can be insistent that others adopt them (Pellizzoni,

2011). However, the effective use of standards relies on actors being able to see beyond their

professional and institutional silos (Velte et al, 2018). This is important because, to enable a

sustainability transition towards a CE, at a range of scales, socio-technical pathways that

would include standards as they help alignment, need to be found that can help push niche

activity towards a new socio-technical regime (cf. Geels and Schot, 2007).

4

This study is set within the broad historical context of the co-evolutionary dynamics between

niche CE process/technical advances and leading public and private CE actors. The

willingness of key actors (or lack of it) to consider standards linked to material flows, the ways

in which actors interpret standards, continually constructing, contesting and reconstructing

inferences (Homrich et al, 2017, Velte et al, 2018), and the content of the standards

themselves will directly impact on the ways in which the CE is realised. In transition terms,

these actors operate at the niche, or micro level, and seek to establish new pathways which

will eventually supplant the existing regime where institutional rules are established (at the

meso level) all the while responding to broad shifts in the neoliberal economic and political

landscape at the macro level (Geels and Schot, 2007). Throughout this study, neoliberalism

is taken to mean the “awkward amalgamation” and “always problematic alliance between anti-

statist libertarianism on the one hand and authoritarian interventionism on the other (Peck,

2004, 400) which has a “utopian vision of a free society and free economy [which] is ultimately

unattainable” (Peck, 2010, 7). Related work in other sectors, especially medicine and

biotechnology, is suggestive of the ways in which the framing of knowledge by institutions

takes place. As Demortain (2017, 139) states, “It becomes crucial to ask where … standards

come from and gain credibility … what valuations of technology and appreciations of their

risks or benefits do they embed, and who controls them?” This research therefore asks what

the role is of these public and private actors - governmental bodies, companies and

trade/business associations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), amongst others -

regarding the political legitimation of standards linked to improved waste and resources

sustainability.

Facilitating economic growth and development by using standards to assist in establishing a

CE, is examined in terms of the creation and sustaining of materials’ markets. There is a

pressing need to better understand how and why private sector actors seek to maintain

existing standards for material quality as well as developing new ones. Companies may

subscribe to a wide variety of environmental standards. An environmental management

system certified to the International Organisation for Standardisation, ISO 14001 for example,

is an organization standard linked to top-down regulatory approaches which first appeared in

the 1990s. Given increasing state reluctance to engage in environmental regulation (Heynen

et al., 2007), the question of whether such neoliberal environmental governance via standards

reassure governmental bodies about reductions in stricter state-led regulation requires

examination.

Long-standing shifts away from significant state involvement in market and regulatory

coordination from the 1980s onwards suggest a greater role for the private sector which, in a

5

neoliberal framework that seeks to use standards to underpin the flow of materials that are

central to the CE. However, through the detailed empirical material presented here, it becomes

possible to discern the nature of the claims made by key actors who are setting and using

standards. In particular, it is possible to identify why some actors pursue standards and make

claims for their use in certain ways whilst others contest their relevance in the market place

as well as a form of governance. This empirical approach provides a framework for a richer

theoretical understanding of the contemporary neoliberal state (Heynen et al 2007; Pellizzoni

2011). On the basis of the analysis here, a reassessment of the role of standards in

contemporary environmental governance is advocated (Loconto. and Demortain, 2017).

Standards align flows of materials and networks (e.g. supply chains, corporate actors, and

standard-setting bodies) and they seek to create spaces of reduced uncertainty and for those

spaces to keep unfolding because that creates larger markets. However, these spaces are

continually created in a provisional way as are the standards themselves. They continually

need to be constructed and reconstructed (cf. Cetina and Mulkay, 1983; Cetina, 2013). These

spaces and the standards reinforce one another but also, when weakened, they undermine

one another. In particular, the standards that support the CE, and the different notions of it,

are much more contested than might have been expected. This critique also matters at the

level of neoliberal environmental governance because standards offer a window into the ways

in which the empirical evidence on the ground does not necessarily match what theory

suggests should be occurring.

This paper is divided into four sections: Section 2.0 covers the methodology and methods

used to achieve the aims and objectives. Section 3.0 covers theorising standards and the

circular economy. Section 4.0 reports the research results regarding standards and the CE. In

Section 5.0, there is a discussion with conclusions given.

2.0 Methodology and Methods

A mixed-methods approach was pursued with this research in order to benefit from the

increased confidence levels that come from combining quantitative and qualitative data

(Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2010, Plano Clark and Creswell, 2011). The time period of the study

begins in 2001 with the first academic article mentioning the specific 'CE' concept (Ueno,

2001). Similar conceptual terms - such as 'Industrial Ecology' - were in use earlier in the 20th

Century, but the specific focus of this study is the competing social constructions of the CE

concept through standards and standard setting.

A sociology of knowledge approach was chosen to help identify contributors. These waste and

resource actors are considered to be continuously engaged in inter-subjective sense-making

6

and learning around the adoption and use of standards within the context of normative moves

towards the CE (cf. Vygotsky, 1934/1987). Sociology of knowledge studies highlight how the

creation of concepts leads to reciprocal roles for actors. In time, these roles become

institutionalised and meanings are embedded in society. New routines (or ‘ways of doing

things’) are agreed via a politics of knowledge that reduces uncertainty. New realities in

different places and at different scales are thus ‘socially constructed’ (Scheurich and

McKenzie, 2008). Such studies emphasise how understandings are constructed (and co-

constructed) by members of specific communities of practice. In order to legitimate their world

views, individuals use particular mutually-agreed concepts and theoretical perspectives (cf.

Latour and Woolgar, 2013, Cetina, 2013). Typically, this will involve researchers analysing

narratives that appear in secondary source material such as policy documents, professional

publications, the media and academic articles (see, for example, the policy analysis of

McDowall et al 2017).

At present, debates on the CE are marked by competing constructions of the concept rather

than mutual agreement. A sociology of knowledge approach also reveals how emergent

strands of knowledge appear, are contested and evolve (cf. Berger and Luckmann, 1966,

Cetina and Mulkay, 1983). In the case of CE, a wide range of publications from professional

trade journals to academic publications have a major role in meaning making and therefore

how waste and resources actors position themselves in relation to the use of standards

(including in a future CE). Primary and secondary source data also shows these actors'

broader perceptions about the nature of the relationship between industry and the state in

terms of environmental regulation.

Analysis of the shifting nature of contested approaches to standards and a future CE is needed

(Homrich et al. 2018). The mapping of rival perceptions is important because it helps forge an

improved understanding of how and why certain actors use their power and influence in the

public arena to promote these concepts. Such analysis suggests which interpretations of the

utility (or otherwise) of standards’ use in a future CE are starting to dominate and will be useful

enablers of normative actor/organisational change.

Data from secondary-sourced publications was collected to analyse how CE actors are

positioning themselves in terms of meaning making and the use of standards. The study period

finished at the end of March, 2018. The following activity was undertaken:

7

1) An academic literature search was conducted in English-language publications via two

online journal databases, Web of Science and Scopus. This search covered articles

from 2001 up to the end of 2017i.

2) An examination of key professional websites, e.g. British Standards Institute (BSI),

International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the European Committee for

Standardization and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization

(CEN-CENELEC), trade associations and professional institutes), was undertaken.

Information on standards for material flows in the CE also helped identify key actor

interviewees.

3) An exploration of specialist waste trade outputs, i.e. grey literature (e.g. from the

Recycling Association), on standards and the CE was carried out. This search also

helped to identify key actor interviewees.

4) Government department web sites dealing with standards and the CE were searched

in the UK, EU, China, the US and the UN. This search provided information on policy-

related material.

5) Web sites of non-governmental bodies and charities involved in promoting the CE were

trawled for written material on standards, e.g. the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF),

the European Environmental Bureau, Recoup, and Waste and Resources Action

Programme (WRAP).

6) Think tank and lobbyists' publications were examined from the web sites of the British

Plastics Federation, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (US), and Policy

Exchange.

7) CE and standards articles were also searched for in more general, popular press

coverage including the BBC, China Dialogue, the Guardian and Sky News.

Primary-sourced interview data was then drawn from 28 individuals in the UK, continental

Europe and China between 2017 and early 2018. Interviewees were with standard setters,

standardisers and key private sector companies involved in the waste and resources

management sector (Table 1). Standard setters represent actors involved in standard-setting

bodies from the EU to national standards associations. Standardisers are actors who work

with standards on a day-to-day basis and may be involved in further aligning and/or

8

maintaining standards taken up by others. Typically, this includes trade associations and

larger companies. Finally, there are private sector companies of whom assumptions have not

been made about how standards shapes their activities given the heterogeneous nature of

their activity in the marketplace at present. The interviews were necessary to explore in greater

depth how perceptions of the CE concept is developing, whether the professed role of

standards is enabling flows of materials, the perceived challenges in the use of standards and

standard setting in the future. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted using a

question list. They typically lasted between 30 and 40 minutes and were transcribed and coded

in terms of the emergent themes and responses and anonymised. The majority of the

interviews were undertaken with very senior figures in the sector. Each interviewee was

selected on the basis of their representativeness within the total range of public and private

actors involved in CE developments (as identified from a mix of snowballing interviews and a

review of secondary sources). Interviews were semi-structured based around themes relevant

to the interviewee.

Table 1: Summary of Interviewee Themes and Responses

Actor Core interview themes Popular responses Standard setters Standard setting Policy

challenges Barriers/enablers to change Who to cooperate with Political will China Markets and quality Trade Governance

Policy context Governance Networks Intergovernmental relations Professional associations Trade and tariffs

Standardisers Policy challenges Standard setting Barriers/enablers to change Political will Who to cooperate with China Markets and quality

Policy context Materials & quality Governance Networks Professional associations Trade and tariffs

Private sector companies

Brexit & Standards Policy challenges Standard setting Barriers/enablers to change Markets and quality Use of standards China

Limited nature of standards Innovation Materials & quality Trade and tariffs Regulation/red tape Supply chains

9

In Table 1, the key actor groups that were interviewed are identified, the typical themes that

were discussed with the interviewees and the most popular responses from each set of actors.

The interviewees were often presenting complex points and summary Table 1 necessarily

simplifies the responses. There were also a wide variety of responses to particular themes

that were asked about but for clarity and brevity only the most popular are provided.

The next section outlines the theoretical context in which this research was undertaken.

3.0 Theorising Standards and the Circular Economy

Analysis of normative moves towards the CE typically pursues the effectiveness of three

different process-driven approaches. One process approach to analysis uses Material Flow

Analysis as a tool for gauging the effectiveness of attempts to meet CE and sustainable

development goals (Ayres, 1978, Braungart et al., 2007, McDonough and Braungart, 2002).

A second approach involves assessment of an evolving range of indicators to gauge eco-city

performance in China (Wang et al., 2011, Du, 2016). These indicators work alongside or

evolve into standards which can include, for example, pilot international standards, including

LEED-ND, CASBEE-UD, and EEWH-EC. These standards are applied to monitor and

evaluate the performance of an entire eco-city system in terms of resource inputs and outputs.

A third approach involves evaluating indicators for comparing industrial symbiosis models

worldwide (Boons et al., 2011, Jiao and Boons, 2014). Such important insights offered by this

work, which involves legitimating particular quantitative tools in regard to standards and

standard-setting when examined via a sociology of knowledge approach, nevertheless only

reveal part of the much broader and more dynamic contested meanings of standards and the

CE.

It is essential to draw out the differing and overlapping social constructions of the concepts of

'Circular Economy' and 'Standards'. This sociology of knowledge approach to standards and

the CE is important because, in the context of a sustainability transition, 'buying-in' by key

actors and institutions to a particular knowledge framework will shape how CE activity unfolds

at a range of scales and over time. Standards matter for the CE because they help to

coordinate flows of materials by ensuring the right quality arrives at the right place at the right

time. In terms of the evolution of social constructions of standards, actors are involved in a

continuing evolution and contestation over empirical evidence and its meaning (Korhonen et

al., 2018). Academic journals (and other publications) have a major role in meaning making

and academic positioning. Material submitted to journals comes back as printed positions

which are then contested on the basis of scientific judgements, each with their own specific

interest, but also based upon divergent moral and political doctrines (Owens and Cowell,

10

2011). In the case of CE publications, this process suggests that the shifting nature of

contested approaches to knowledge production are as important as the motivations of CE

proponents and critics, how they promote (or challenge) the concept, how and why certain

individuals and groups have attracted such power and attention, and how certain

interpretations of CE may (or may not) become anchored, i.e. ‘sticky’ or path dependent. In

this sense, the configuration of knowledge in an emerging CE ‘episteme’, or rather

epistemology, is often based on an opaque set of fundamental assumptions:

“the episteme … [is] the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from

among all the statements which are possible those that will be acceptable within, I

won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say

are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation,

not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as

scientific” (Foucault, 1980, 197).

Over time, key actors will use supporting evidence to legitimate their perspectives. Actors are

likely to seek a mutually-agreed and politically-sanctioned structure to the knowledge divisions

upon which practice is based, however, up until such agreements are made knowledge will

be contested.

At the current juncture in the early evolution of the CE, there is a good deal of contestation of

the term’s meaning (Kirchherr et al., 2017) and of how standards may facilitate circular flows

of materials (Tecchio et al., 2017, Vanegas et al., 2017). Within the literature, McDowall et al

(2017) have drawn out the competing perspectives on the CE in China and Europe. The

Chinese approach the CE is framed as a response to the environmental challenges created

by rapid growth and industrialisation. CE debates are concerned with ways to reduce waste

and promote resource efficiency. Within Europe, the CE is promoted from a narrower

environmental agenda and is promoted as a way of businesses achieving a double dividend

of improved efficiency through more economic use of resources. Meanwhile, Kirchherr et al.

(2017) have undertaken a comprehensive review of CE definitions. Kirchherr et al. (2017)

found that frequently CE is depicted as a combination of terms associated with waste

hierarchy, namely reduce, reuse and recycle. Rather less attention is given to recognising that

CE demands a systemic shift from a linear (waste) economy. Even less effort is made to link

the CE to wider policy and academic debates such as that of sustainable development. There

is, therefore, considerable contestation surrounding the interpretation of the CE. With a

sociology of knowledge approach, insights are offered into the likely competing and uncertain

versions of the CE that are to be found amongst policy makers and practitioners.

11

Overall, the standards and CE literatures suggests significant gaps in terms of understanding

how private sector actors seek to maintain existing standards for materials and develop new

ones which go beyond the evaluation of their effectiveness. A number of questions are thrown

up by the literature which present significant challenges to the normative shift towards a CE.

Why do standards and the hoped-for CE mean different things to different

stakeholders?

How are standards used to promote a CE by resource management actors?

How can the sociology of knowledge and neoliberal environmental governance

approaches help with insights into delivering a sustainable transition in waste and

resource management, i.e. a shift to a CE?

Answering these questions helps us to advance notions of the role of standards in neoliberal

environmental governance (Ponte and Cheyns, 2013; Guéneau, 2018).

The next two subsections outline the theoretical areas of relevance to the discussion in Section

5.0. The first sub-sections asks 'What are standards?' in terms of neoliberal environmental

governance and explains why they matter. In this sub-section, the role of two key standards

bodies, ISO and the BSI is explained. The second sub-section suggests an approach to a

sustainability transition, such as that with the CE, where standards are shown to help a niche

activity become mainstream.

3.1 Standards and Neoliberal Environmental Governance

There are several interpretations of what constitutes a standard (Loconto and Demortain,

2017; Loconto and Fouilleux, 2014). Standards "define normative rules. They prescribe what

those who adopt these rules should do and hence enable and restrict behavior" (Brunsson et

al., 2012, 616). According to Brunsson et al. (2012, 617) a standard is a specific type of rule

with three characteristics. Firstly, they are: "Important tools for regulating individual as well as

collective behaviour and achieving social order". Secondly, standards are voluntary for those

who wish to use them. In this sense, the decision to comply with a standard is one for those

who wish to use the standard. This means that if a standard is to be effective it must be seen

to be legitimate by those who use it and further accentuate the legitimacy of an action. Thirdly,

standards are meant to be widely used. For those who formulate standards, the so-called

standardisers, are looking to:

12

"[P]rovide rules for the many ... They offer standards - which could be described as pieces

of general advice offered to a large number of potential adopters" (Brunsson and

Jacobsson, 2000, 2).

Standards are an often little-noticed but nevertheless a significant feature of contemporary life

(Timmermans and Epstein, 2010, Brunsson et al., 2012). Bowker and Star (1999, 319)

suggest that an "incredible, interlocking set of categories, standards, and means for

interoperating infrastructural technologies" has been constructed around us particularly in

terms of the material flows that underpin markets and international trade. Studying standards

therefore offers an understanding of the repercussions, arising from interactions with a growth

fixated global economy, one that is based on neoliberal themes of trade, deregulation and a

limited state.

In terms of the role of the state within an analysis of neoliberal approaches to governance,

environmental policy has traditionally been dominated by governmental activities, and the

private sector and NGOs have played a lesser role in delivering public policy (but see, for

example, WWF's support for the Forest Stewardship Council). Standards, like other neoliberal

practices, such as auditing and certification, are becoming more important policy instruments

and a means to provide reassurance on quality when trading takes place (Bloomfield, 2012,

Cashore, 2002; Guéneau, 2018; Marx and Wouters, 2014). Market and non-market actors

"rely increasingly on standards to manage reputations, make claims credible, and rationalise

competition, especially when traditional forms of regulation (e.g. governmental) have been

politically delegitimised" (Timmermans and Epstein, 2010, 77). Standards have come to the

fore in particular in food and agricultural policy (Busch, 2000, Henson and Humphrey, 2009)

where corporate interests have a key role in securing food safety (Marsden et al., 2009).

Creating a standard provides an important window through which to examine states or private

actors' authority to influence the quality and credibility of production and/or services (Cashore,

2002). This is because standards are rules that apply across space and at a range of

overlapping scales which extend from extremely localised practice to the global activities of

transnational corporations who are moving significant flows of materials. Reassessing the role

of standards in contemporary environmental governance means that critical analysis can be

made of the ways that they are involved in the upscaling or down-scaling of markets rather

than treating materials and scale as unproblematic. This analysis matters to understanding

how the CE is conceptualised at a range of scales and how neoliberal environmental

governance can help or hinder CE development. The potential for national and regional

transitions to a CE in a European context is also analysed.

13

In terms of the efficacy of standards, much depends upon the trust that these actors have in

the standard and if it is perceived to be robust and reliable or otherwise (Loconto, 2017)..

There is, therefore, an ongoing process of constructing and maintaining trust in standards to

ensure their legitimacy and authority (Mueller et al., 2009; Loconto and Demortain, 2017.

Brunsson et al. (2012, 619) point out that:

"Standardization organizations face the challenge of endowing the rules they develop with

legitimacy, especially since they do not possess any legal authority. Without legitimacy

would-be adopters are unlikely to follow a standard. One way to achieve legitimacy is to

try to include different actors and encourage consensus among them while developing a

standard."

Two examples of bodies that do this are the International Organization for Standardization

based in Geneva and the UK’s national standards body, the British Standards Institute.

3.1.1 International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

ISO is an independent, non-governmental organisation formed in 1946 currently with 161

national standards bodies in its membership. ISO has published 22,063 international

standards and related documents. These standards cover: “almost every industry, from

technology, to food safety, to agriculture and healthcare. ISO International Standards impact

everyone, everywhere” (ISO, 2018). ISO defines international standards as things that: “make

things work. They give world-class specifications for products, services and systems, to

ensure quality, safety and efficiency. They are instrumental in facilitating international trade”

(ISO, 2018). ISO’s legitimacy is therefore drawn from its long history, its wide national

membership and its ability to bring actors together (via industry and national standards bodies)

from a number of nations to define, set and renew standards in ways that are specifically

designed. An organisation’s formal accreditation of a standard – certification – provides a key

indicator of the use of standards in market-based activities and therefore helps to chart the

ever-increasing rise of neoliberalism. Figure 1 gives an indication of how popular a number of

management standards have been since ISO9001 was introduced in 1993. By 2016 there

were over 1.6 million certifications of all ISO standards.

3.1.2 British Standards Institute (BSI)

The BSI began its work in 1901. This London-based non-profit distributing company has Royal

Charter status. As a national standards body, BSI works with over 11,000 experts to generate

best practice for business and assesses whether companies’ processes, procedures and

14

products meet recognized international standards, many of which BSI have been involved in

developing. The company has a portfolio of more than 30,000 current standards. BSI defines

a standard as:

“an agreed way of doing something. It could be about making a product, managing a

process, delivering a service or supplying materials … They are powerful tools that can

help drive innovation and increase productivity. They can make organizations more

successful and people’s everyday lives easier, safer and healthier.” (BSI, 2018b, italics

added)

15

Figure 1: All Totals of Certifications for the Current Range of ISO Management Schemes

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

1800000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

tota

l num

ber

of c

ertif

icat

es

ISO9001-Supply Chain Quality (1993) ISO14001-Environ Mgt System (1999) ISO16949-Vehicle Supply Chains (2004)ISO27001-IT & Supply Chains (2006) ISO22000-Food (2009) ISO50001-Energy (2011)ISO22301-Societal Security (2014) ISO200001-IT & Supply Chains (2015) ISO28000-Security (2016)total

16

Organisations can choose standards that relate to regulatory requirements, e.g. for

management processes; technical specifications which may relate to products; and/or guide

standards such as BS8001, the new circular economy standard introduced in 2017 which acts

as a guiding framework for the development of further and more detailed process and technical

standards.

3.2 Contesting Standards

In terms of the contestation around standard setting involving the experts brought together by

bodies like ISO and BSI, Timmermans and Epstein (2010, 70) note that:

"[Standards] help regulate and calibrate social life by rendering the modern world

equivalent across cultures, time, and geography. Standardization may seem to be

politically neutral on the surface, but in fact it poses sharp questions for democracy: How

do we hold the standard makers accountable? Whose benefits are served by standards?

When standards conflict, which ones should prevail?"

One practice-based assumption has so far been that actors' understandings of what is

happening in standard development is unproblematic. For these actors, standard setting is

explicitly based around consensus seeking. However, nuanced analysis is needed that offers

enhanced understanding of how and why competing actors gain authority through supporting

a standard. Further than this, the context in which standards are used on an everyday basis

can be shown to contribute to or undermines their legitimacy. So, for example, in the empirical

material in Section 4.0 below, the extent of shared meanings around key themes are

unravelled: 1) meanings and the CE, 2) markets and the CE and, 3) standards and

governance. From a neoliberal environmental governance perspective, the lack of a powerful

political authority, i.e. a central or regional state body, means that ambiguity and contestation

can emerge with standard setting and adherence. Businesses, hampered by real-world

considerations of economic advantage, may not ‘rationally’ cooperate and instead choose to

use (or not use) standards only in a pragmatic way. Such outcomes would suggest that plans

for upscaling and transitioning CE activities from niches to regimes may be more problematic

than has so far been realised.

3.3 Theorising Transitional Change

The CE requires flows of materials. Its development is caught up with a neoliberal approach

to environmental governance because of the speed and distance with which materials travel

around the globe. Increasingly underpinning trade in materials are standards because they

17

provide a reassurance on quality of materials so that they can become an input to the next link

in an ideally closed loop supply chain.

When examining the neoliberal environmental governance of material flows there are multiple

actors and multiple scales. It is therefore necessary to have a theoretical approach for a multi-

level sustainability transition with waste and resource management. One perspective involves

‘transition pathways’ which are identified from novel configurations of socio-technical activity

in micro-level niches (Kemp, 1994). Innovative growth structures based around actors, sectors

and/or firms are protected in niches thanks to subsidies and/or other regulatory measures. As

a result of ongoing co-evolutionary activity between a range of societal actors promoting

complimentary and/or competing technologies, novel niche activity is thought to replace a

regime or regime(s) at the meso-level. The regime represents the ‘rules of the game’ set by

institutions and this includes standards. Ultimately, as entire regimes are replaced, the

‘system’ shifts from a linear approach to waste and resources management to a circular one

(cf. Kemp, 1994). This systems perspective on transitions has specific implications for

standards, the CE and neoliberal environmental governance. Approaches to multi-level

governance suggest that key actors use their power and influence to gain legitimacy for their

specific positions with regard to how they are governed. While such debates occur within the

public arena, much standard setting takes place away from the public gaze. The standards

that emerge from such deliberations then have a degree of path dependence which impacts

upon later deliberations and framings amongst all actors as to how they wish to be governed.

In the next section, the results of this investigation into standards and standard setting linked

to the CE are presented. As one moves further from the core tenets of this neoliberal

framework, so the ability to govern the CE through legitimating processes including standards

becomes more contested. In the first section below, about standards and the CE, results are

most contested because a novel policy area is tackled where agreed meaning is yet to

emerge. In the following sub-section on markets and the CE, increasing coherence around

practitioner-led perceptions of the CE’s economic utility for actors is demonstrated. In the final

sub-section on standards and governance, the greatest potential levels for shared meaning

are found thanks to the overlapping institutional commitments to neoliberal environmental

governance.

4.0 Results - Standards and the CE

Understanding neoliberal environmental governance and the implications for the transition of

the current system of waste management to a CE critically depends upon how standards are

being socially constructed and tested. It is the larger and more vertically- and horizontally-

18

integrated waste and resource companies in conjunction with other influential actors, including

state bodies and NGOs, who are taking a lead and setting CE standards in response to

regulatory and reputational pressures. While the comments below largely reflect the views of

the larger companies, some input came from smaller operators keen to engage with

standards.

4.1 CE Meanings

Key actors consider standards linked to material flows by continually constructing, contesting

and reconstructing their own interpretations of CE activity. The transition to a CE has so far

involved high-level ambitions from national and supranational governmental bodies. This

action has come at a time of increased promotion of knowledge about the CE from think tanks,

NGOs, charities, academics and private companies (see Appendix A for data on the rising

numbers of academic publications). Together these actors have been setting out the content

and meaning of the CE at a policy level. Key meanings of what CE activity is have been

presented by several leading bodies. These include the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF)

which states that:

“A circular economy is an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention

and design” (EMF, 2012, 7).

The EC picked up on this work of the EMF and went on to define a CE as:

“[one] where the value of products, materials and resources is maintained in the economy

for as long as possible, and the generation of waste minimised” (EC, 2015)

Both the EMF and EC’s activities have in turn informed the CE definition proposed by the

British Standards Institute in 2017 with the world’s first CE standard (BS8001):

“A more circular approach seeks to decouple economic growth from resource

consumption” (BSI, 2018a).

What these evolving definitions have in common is a systems approach to the flows of

materials, the suggestion of positive economic benefits for organisations engaging in CE

activities and the coordination and design of new markets. However, it would be a mistake to

assume that convergent understandings of CE are playing out in a straightforward fashion

within the waste and resources sector (cf. Gregson et al, 2015; Homrich et al, 2018; Korhonen

et al, 2018). Instead, an exploration of how the CE is understood by different standard users

19

gives an indication of the broader shifts in environmental governance in recent decades and

the difficulties that may arise with an evolving CE in the future.

Other actors have indicated their scepticism of the CE and the activities it requires. From the

UK, industry actors point to a lack of understanding as to what the CE might mean, highlighting

a gulf between the thinking of larger companies and policy makers and much of the industry.

One interviewee noted that: "the circular economy, is … essentially all things to all people"

(Interviewee B1). Whilst for another:

"[R]elatively few people in the waste management industry can honestly say they could

even articulate what the circular economy [is]. I think people in the waste sector tend to

use it as a euphemism for the waste hierarchy." (Interviewee A3)

Another industry actor suggested that key bodies were more interested in traditional waste

management practices than promoting something novel:

"[The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)] and the

Environment Agency, for example, those kinds of organisations, are, really waste-y, so

you know, unless and until they can look across the economy, they will tend to regulate

the end of pipe and not think [of] ... the circular economy." (Interviewee A3)

These more sceptical comments indicate that the normative direction of change towards a CE

is being led by EC policy. While the EC works with the larger industry actors, NGOs and the

standard setting bodies, there are significant queries about the costs of moving to a CE via

standards amongst a broader range of waste and resources actors. As with any transition,

there is a fight for legitimacy over the likely costs and benefits. This normative shift requires

broad realignment not just in terms of actor practice but also in terms of knowledge resources

and thinking (cf. Homrich et al, 2018). Actors want tangible evidence of the financial benefits

of the CE, and using standards to get there, before committing to change (Velte et al, 2018).

This activity suggests that the future evolution of CE secondary markets will depend in large

part on enrolling some very sceptical actors hesitant to realign their business practices. A

sociology of knowledge approach allows researchers to discern the diversity of meanings

around the CE. This matters because, without a dominant narrative or a shared consensus

emerging, then CE debates will be riven by conflicting meanings and rival coalitions of interest

(cf. Latour and Woolgar, 2013). CE activity is then reflected in the ways in which key actors

perceive relationships in the marketplace.

20

4.2 Markets and the CE

The relationship between standard setting and increasing global trade is one of the main

outcomes of a neoliberal system. With increased global, Pan-European and regional trade

multi-faceted environmental impacts and goal conflicts are becoming more apparent,

particularly in terms of barriers that may emerge to the development of the CE and hence

moving towards more sustainable development. How these issues are taking hold at a range

of scales is briefly explored below.

4.2.1 Global trade, markets and standards

The burgeoning growth in the trade of materials worldwide is in part facilitated by the growth

in standards (see Figure 1). The global trade in materials represents an upscaling of the CE.

It depends upon materials being able to flow to markets for reuse and recycling so that they

can be drawn back into productive use. Standards and neoliberal environmental governance

are, though, subject to periodic contestation and challenge, sometimes using their own

instruments. For example, China which has been a key destination in the international trade

in waste has become increasingly concerned at the poor quality material that it imports and

that this has detrimental effects on local environments. In 2017 and 2018 the Chinese

government decided to strengthen the supervision of solid waste from source by raising further

the quality standards for the importing of waste and applying them to a wider range of materials

(Moore, 2017a, 2017b). This has significant consequences for European, North American and

Australasian companies engaged in the waste trade who find it much less easy to access a

key market as their materials will often fall below the quality threshold of the Chinese standard.

According to one Chinese interviewee who is involved in standard setting:

“When the Chinese raised the quality standards it would surely affect other countries’

[standards and waste] systems. Why do foreign countries complain a lot about Chinese

standards raising? It is because they need to adjust their standards and waste systems

to the new demands of the new Chinese standards. … [M]ainly the packaging and

recycling facilities would have to be upgraded to fit the new 0.5% quality threshold.”

(Interviewee CH2)

The introduction of higher waste quality standards in China has had three key consequences.

For some, waste companies and traders it has led to a search for new, cheap markets in which

waste can be disposed of, for example, in Malaysia and Indonesia (Sky News, 2017;

Economist, 2017); for some countries, such as Thailand and Vietnam that feel they have

become the targets for the exporting of waste displaced from China it has led to a ratcheting

up of their own standards (Reuters, 2018); and for some companies it has resulted in greater

21

efforts to improve the quality of waste materials as this will be where the greatest market

opportunities can be gained (see 4.3.3). Nevertheless, China’s actions, suggest that normally

voluntary measures can effectively become regulatory. They also make it clear that the use of

standards is not politically neutral as some proponents profess and it becomes clear that the

Chinese state is not holding back in its desire to protect its own niche CE activity and so make

its transition as rapid as possible.

In terms of the sociology of knowledge approach pursued here, this market evidence suggests

that standards, in the context of CE activity, can be used in different ways. Western standards

are voluntary and gain strength through actor enrolment whereas in China standards are being

interpreted highly politically as an alternative tool to help avoid poor quality imports.

4.2.2 Europe, standards and markets

Standards are central to the activity of markets in terms of trust-building and quality control.

From a policy perspective, the role of standards in the CE is very clear at the moment for those

working on circular practices in Europe:

“[Standards] facilitate trade … When you adopt European standards … it means that

these standards are going across the trade routes … and that helps to remove the trade

barriers in Europe. If these standards are adopted abroad … then they will have more of

a relevance, which helps the European industry.” (Interviewee F2)

Facilitating the growth of markets in Europe requires borderless movements and the

development of new secondary markets in recycled materials. A European policymaker

suggests that standards are central to growing secondary raw materials markets in a CE:

"[Y]ou cannot have a secondary market for raw materials if you do not have a set of

interlinking standards. You need a quality standard for recycled material, which is linked

to very clear quality standards for the products that incorporate those materials, which is

linked to quality standards for virgin materials." (Interviewee A2)

Companies therefore are prepared to regard standards as part of the currency of trade:

“[I]f you like ... standards are sort of [the] ... formalisation of the market supply chain

message.” (Interviewee B1)

22

However, striking an agreed balance between regulatory and voluntary activity within an

evolving CE is key to hoped-for growth and development. Where that line should be drawn is

currently disputed depending upon the specific industrial activity. For example, "[T]he paper

industry continues to believe that it should be the arbiter of the quality of the material it

receives, and not other elements of the supply chain” (Interviewee C2). Another interviewee

suggested that while standards have a place, it is the markets that decide what is traded and

what is not:

“Ultimately the market will dictate … As long as you're supplying material that is legally

compliant, then the [company] has a choice of whether to buy it or not. You know if they

don't like the material, they don't buy it, if they do like it, they do buy it. If it's not the greatest

material then they might pay less for it, if it's great material they might pay a premium for

it. But the market sort of tends to regulate itself.” (Interviewee C3)

Without state-led buy-in and political champions of CE, sceptics can continue to suggest that

little realignment of actors’ thinking and practice (i.e. a new transition pathway from niche to

regime) will occur. Standards, they say, will support a transition – but cannot challenge the

fundamental operation of the marketplace in deciding change.

4.2.3 UK standards, markets and trade

In the context of increasingly neoliberal environmental governance, the UK based BSI have

tried to use a new CE standard in order to facilitate a realignment of waste management

practices which includes the creation of new markets for materials. The initiative was

supported in part by the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy and a BSI-

led group of actors including, for example, the EMF and the Chartered Institute of Wastes

Management (CIWM). Unlike previous product and process standards, this new framework

was intended to encourage broad industrial participation in a principles-based standard. After

an 18-month stakeholder consultation, BS8001 appeared in July 2017. It claimed to be:

“[the] first practical framework and guidance of its kind for organizations to implement the

principles of the circular economy … It is intended to apply to any organization … It

provides practical ways to secure smaller ‘quick-wins’, right through to helping

organizations re-think holistically how their resources are managed to enhance financial,

environmental and social benefits.” (BSI, 2018a)

Whilst one argument is that this guidance standard comes too early to be useful given the

early development of the CE, others have praised the enabling potential of this flexible

23

approach. One interviewee, for example, suggesting that BS8001 as a voluntary framework

should not be pursued without broader regulatory provisions in place: "I think … 8001 will be

important, [but] it needs underpinning … with proper legislation" (Interviewee C2).

Tensions between the role of government and markets is developed further in the next sub-

section.

4.3 Standards and Neoliberal Environmental Governance

Amongst the interviewees there was an overwhelming, and largely uncritical, acceptance – a

shared interpretation - of a neoliberal approach to environmental governance of waste and

resources. This is reflected in their comments below which are organised around three

themes: setting standards, business and government, and power and legitimacy.

4.3.1 Setting Standards

There was common agreement amongst the interviewees that business interests were to the

fore in the setting of standards (Interviewees A2, F1, F2). This important point was made in

the knowledge that a wide range of others actors (such as NGOs and academics, for example)

might be involved in deliberations on standards. And, not surprisingly, therefore, standards

tend to support the market strategies of those bigger corporate actors with the resources to

participate in standard-setting exercises. This degree of self-interest in standard setting has

important implications well beyond a product, a process or a principle. As one interviewee

noted: "I think that there is a growing population of economic actors that sees standards … as

a policy tool” (Interviewee A2). This interviewee went on to point out that even when efforts

are made to make standard setting inclusive industry voices dominate:

“[O]n the civil society's side, there are serious resource constraints for getting involved in

standardisation discussions … [T]he level of technical knowledge and know-how is very

... high, and very often civil society doesn't have the resources to really engage … [T]here

is … quite an imbalance in the standardisation work between the amount of resources

that industry … can and will put into it, and what other actors can put into it” (Interviewee

A2)

With industry to the fore in identifying topics for new standards and the content of those

standards, government can often appear to be lagging. Standards instead appear to be being

used by both the state and industry as a way of providing public policy through private means,

as examined in the next sub-section.

24

4.3.2 Business and Government

Three leading European CE actors cited here – the BSI, the EC, and the EMF – all promote a

win-win partnership between the state and industry (BSI, 2018a, EC, 2015, EMF, 2012).

Delivery of the desired outcomes for a sustainability transition towards a CE increasingly has

to rely on voluntary standards. This is demonstrated by the BSI’s promotion of the CE

principle-led standard. For these and other key CE actors, there is implicitly and/or explicitly a

subscription to a neoliberal environmental governance approach:

“[I]n a political situation where we want to only have public policy intervention if this is an

added value and where we want to focus as much as possible on allowing for dynamic

standard setting by collaborative action, I think there is a clear coming together between

public policy and economic actors, to try to see how much we, how can we achieve things

through standards. I think that's an obvious area of common interest.” (Interviewee A2)

The EU, meanwhile, is even more explicit about the roles of state and non-state actors in a

CE transition (Gregson et al, 2015). They are key to the process:

“Economic actors, such as business and consumers, are key in driving this process.

Local, regional and national authorities are enabling the transition, but the EU also has a

fundamental role to play in supporting it.” (EC, 2015)

The BSI with its practical guidance aimed specifically at the private sector suggests that:

“[The CE] enables [companies] to capitalize on cost savings; unlock new revenue

streams; and make themselves more resilient to external shocks and disruption” (BSI,

2018a, italics added)

This sort of language and these sorts of messages have appeal to most corporate actors when

interviewed about the prospects for the transition to a future CE, for example:

“[O]ne of the things that we recommended … was that Government back off even further

and leave even more of this policing to formal standards … there is very much ... an

opportunity in that space for the state to have to do less.” (Interviewee B1)

However, there were some dissenting voices that argue for more government intervention to

help get novel CE practices out of their niches and into the mainstream:

25

“[I]f we're talking about implementing a circular economy, you know proper circular closed

loop sort of resource base, then I think the Government needs to take a strong hand”

(Interviewee C2)

These mutually-reinforcing exchanges suggest a shared perspective and mutuality of benefits

of a CE from the interviewees. The state appreciates the lighter administrative costs while

industry appreciates lighter touch regulation. However, an effective transition to a CE, at

whatever scale, does require governmental intervention in order to support, protect and align

– at least to some degree - the new CE activities as they emerge from niches and ideally move

towards supplanting the current linear waste and resources regime. This suggests that the

role of standards in this hoped-for transition may yet be more problematic than anticipated

because of the way that markets – and not the state - are broadly perceived by actors to

dominate the way the CE may develop. In this sense, quality assurance of material flows will

be central to CE market development given the way several interviewees suggest that it

currently matters less than cost. However, such CE activity is unlikely to take place at all if a

dominant narrative does emerge from early contested perspectives.

4.3.3 Materials, Quality and Standards

Part of the claims for the effectiveness of standards is that they work with the grain of the

market as they help to foster trading relations. Within a CE framework trade and standards

should therefore also be improving the quality of materials. For some of the interviewees,

though, standards were perceived to be marginal in improving quality and securing markets.

In part, interviewees’ perceptions depended on the markets that they operate in and their

positions within supply chains. For example, there was a general view that the closer

businesses were to the consumer, then the more standards were likely to matter. So, for one

business leader, market conditions matter more than standards when it comes to the quality

of materials that they trade in. The interviewee pointed out that: “[I]t's no coincidence that you

get more [quality] rejections in an over-supplied market than you do in an under-supplied

market." This interviewee continued to say that quality: “is generally more of a commercial

decision rather than a standard decision." (Interviewee C3)

There is increasing attention being given to how the quality of recycled materials can be

improved to further stimulate domestic and European market development. In the UK, unlike

Germany, for example, there has traditionally been little interest in the sorting of waste as this

has been regarded as costly and unnecessary since markets were available for low value

waste (e.g. China). Now, though, there is much greater interest in the quality and homogeneity

of plastic materials as this will provide more market opportunities (Neidel and Jakobsen, 2013,

26

10). Many plastic recycling companies are dependent on the materials provided from

Municipal Solid Waste, that is household and commercial waste. Once it has been collected

plastic waste can be sorted into different types, such as film, rigid plastic or PVC. There are

also efforts to refine waste sorting, particularly into polymer type (e.g. PET). For one small

plastic recycling company in Wales, UK, Polymer Extrusions, the quality of the material that

they receive is essential: “Separation [of different types of plastic] is key to the value of

recylates” (Polymer Extrusions’ presentation to CIWM Annual Conference, 23 March, 2017).

This is because the company is able to take plastic waste and reprocess it into reusable

compound pellets. For a product to be reusable it has to meet the specifications of customers.

This happens in two ways: individual customers can specify the quality of the product or they

can work to international standards. There are about 12 European standards for waste plastic

quality and they either specify the quality of material that is used in reprocessing (i.e. the input)

or the output (e.g. pellets/flakes) (Neidel and Jakobsen, 2013 12) for product that can then be

used by those who wish to convert the plastic into an end product. Increasingly plastic

recyclers are concerned with the quality of their input as that directly influences the quality of

the output and market opportunities.

Addressing both quality of product and market opportunities can be problematic for particular

materials. For example, one interviewee reflecting on the challenges of introducing recycled

plastic to milk cartons in the UK, noted that:

“there were difficulties in raising the quantity of recycled HDPE [High-Density

Polyethylene] going into new milk cartons because if you increased the recycled

content of our HDPE, recovered from really advanced recycling plants, there was a

point where the milk started to look a tinge of greeny-blue because the little bit of cap

plastic getting into the separated clear HDPE was enough to give it a slightly green

tinge, and that was a blocker for transitioning to higher levels of recycled content.”

(Interviewee E1)

The problem was overcome by using an ink type that was much easier to wash out when

plastics were recycled. This meant that the HDPE plastic no longer tinged the other plastics

thus reassuring consumers that milk was fresh.

Other recycling and reuse organisations based in the UK were rather more sceptical that

standards were having a positive influence on material quality: “I think what you see happening

is that the market has grown, and enabled recycling to grow in the UK without quality

improving” (Interviewee B1). Another suggested that: “[P]eople who would like to do

27

reprocessing in the UK have been arguing for a while that quality is too low and it needs to be

raised … [D]o we actually adhere to [standards] and refer to them on a day to day basis? No

we don't.” (Interviewee C3)

For proponents of standards, raising quality with waste and resources matters. Standards help

to increase the confidence and trust that actors can place in existing and new markets which

aids economic growth and development as well and this underpins the hoped-for transition to

a CE. This optimism is currently not being more fully reflected in all quarters because the

markets privilege cost over quality. In this context, standards can often appear to be

peripheral.

5.0 Discussion and Conclusions

The application of the sociology of knowledge approach to neoliberalism that is adopted in this

study to analyse the CE and the part that standards play in the development of the CE has

shown considerable value. The CE, as currently configured in its emerging evolution, is

inextricably entangled with a range of institutions which are claiming legitimacy via the framing

of knowledge and formation of standards. This analysis has enabled an understanding that

delves beneath the surface of thinking and practice on the CE to show where there is a shared

understanding and where there is contestation. Unpicking areas of consensus and

disagreement matters both for the immediate future of the development of the CE and also for

an understanding of neoliberal environmental governance. A reassessment of the role of

standards in environmental governance shows rather than treating materials and scale as

unproblematic, the ways that they are involved in the upscaling or down-scaling of markets,

needs detailed analysis. In the context of understanding how the CE is conceptualised at a

range of scales - and how neoliberal environmental governance can help or hinder CE

development – the analysis here matters to the emerging epistemological mapping of this area

of new knowledge (cf. Homrich et al, 2018).

A key feature of standards is that they create spaces that reduce uncertainty. For markets,

where there is clearly a temptation to continually expand spaces, standards help create new

business opportunities and to underpin trade (Guéneau, 2018). This matters for the flow of

materials and, therefore, the scales at which the CE might be realised. The greater the flows

of materials and the more they involve distant partners in a CE network, then the more

globalised the notion of the CE that emerges. Standards, though, are also about a sharing of

knowledge. To be useful in practice, standards users must have common understandings and

practices. The day-to-day business of neoliberal environmental governance requires the

ongoing acceptance of an established repertoire of practices, such as the use and diffusion of

28

standards. More than this, though, the continuing validation of neoliberalism requires that it

can demonstrate its authority in tackling public policy challenges. Widespread concerns over

the production and disposal of waste raise a challenge to the further legitimation of

neoliberalism (Heynen et al, 2007; Pellizzoni, 2011).

In this study, how a neoliberal approach to the governance of the CE seeks to gain legitimacy

and the challenges that it faces has been scrutinised. At the core of the neoliberal project,

considerable shared meaning is found amongst key actors as to the role of government,

markets and standards (Section 4.3). Industry is to the fore in standard setting and have

considerable self-interest in ensuring that standards are perceived to succeed. Government

too, is keen to promote a win-win relationship with the private sector in the promotion of the

CE: governments can justify their reluctance to intervene in markets, and businesses can

repay the faith in light-touch regulation by seeming to deliver on public policy goals (in this

case a more circular economy). Perhaps the one challenge to a core element of standards

and neoliberalism is in relation to the potential to raise the quality of materials that are being

used and reused and which are essential. Here there is a strong feeling that markets for

materials are more concerned with cost than quality. This is an indication of the messy world

in which standards operate, on a day-to-day basis their value can be much more contested

than is often appreciated. That contestation over standards and the CE increases as one

moves further from the core elements of neoliberal environmental governance and into CE

practice.

The second theme that was scrutinised was Markets and the CE (Section 4.2). Here the

interviewees recognised how standards could help to promote trade. Standards are

increasingly prevalent in the global economy. They are seen as a key means of making a

transition to a CE. In this context of neoliberal environmental governance, the analysis

presented here suggests that the delivery of such a transition in waste and resource

management will be problematic at a range of scales. In practice, the use of standards is

complex and contested. For example, China utilises standards as part of its regulatory

armoury, in Europe standards are part of borderless trade, while within the UK, the formulation

of a standard to promote the CE is to assist market development. The case of China apart,

though, there is a tension at the heart of Western approaches over what role government

should play in nurturing a CE: the EU, for example, is seeking to steer development of the CE,

while the UK is more sympathetic to business-led initiatives such as from BSI and the EMF.

Standards only remain legitimate, they only work while key actors recognise their value

(Loconto, 2017). As was shown in the analysis of how key practitioners understand the CE

29

(see Section 4.1; see also Kirchherr et al, 2017), there is considerable controversy surrounding

the meaning of a CE in practice. The high level rhetoric of policy makers, NGOs and some

corporate actors is not wholly shared by those working within the waste and resources and

sector. For the latter, there is a belief that at present the CE involves little or no change to

current practices or thinking. On this view, standards contribute to the smoother working of a

waste economy but do not help in a transition to a CE. The use of standards is complex and

contested. Shared meaning making in the standard setting process and in CE practices can

create and recreate co-construct and reproduce a legitimated framework for neoliberal

environmental governance. The further one moves from the core beliefs of neoliberal

environmental governance and the closer one gets to (emerging) CE practices, so

contestation amongst key actors over becomes more noticeable. A voluntary approach to

environmental regulation does not mean – and cannot impose – uniformity or consensus

amongst key actors. That shared meaning has to be constructed over time. Without the

authority of government to the fore, standards and the practices associated with them are

continually being constructed and reconstructed by more powerful actors as they seek to move

towards a sharing of knowledge amongst a wider community. At a time when transition to a

more resource-efficient economy may be on the cusp, there is currently a degree of

contestation around the meaning and utility of standards. Their practical application and

voluntary nature can run up against market rules and the self-interest of market actors.

Studying standards when flows of traded materials are moving from a predominantly linear

model to a more circular one, provides insights into the challenges of public policy delivery in

the neoliberal model. Analysis suggests that there is a lack of legitimacy for the activities of

many private waste and resources actors. One contributor suggested that: “[T]here can only

be a level playing field if there is some degree of public support for the input provided by civil

society into that process." (Interviewee A2). In this way, as public policy becomes increasingly

private, so questions of trust and legitimacy come more to the fore for civil society activists.

This matters for the CE because, as a system-level change, it cannot be realised by private

actors working in isolation.

Ultimately, there is a strong challenge to neoliberalism as it seeks to promote a transition to a

CE. The role of the state in seeking to coordinate but not necessarily manage transitional

change from novel niche practices to mainstream regimes is problematic. There is evident

tension between those actors professing high ambitions for normative change and the reality

of those involved in the actual work of aligning and realigning corporate interests and activities.

This analysis suggests that if the CE is to happen with the pace and ambition that its advocates

hope for, then it needs to challenge the orthodoxy of neoliberal environmental governance in

30

the early shift from niches to new regime. This challenge involves a rethinking of how policy

instruments, such as standards, operate so that they can be used to challenge existing market

relations rather than simply follow them.

31

Appendix A: Academic Publications Citing the term ‘Circular Economy’ (note Chinese publications’ data is dashed)

32

Acknowledgements Funding: This work was supported by the ESRC and The Panalpina Group.

We would like to thank the reviewers for their positive feedback and helpful insights.

33

References AYRES, R. U. 1978. Resources, environment, and economics: Applications of the

materials/energy balance principle, New York, Wiley. BERGER, P. & LUCKMANN, T. 1966. The Social Construction of Knowledge: A Treatise in

the Sociology of Knowledge, Soho, NY, Open Road Media. BLOOMFIELD, M. J. 2012. Is forest certification a hegemonic force? The FSC and its

challengers. The Journal of Environment & Development, 21, 391-413. BOONS, F., SPEKKINK, W. & MOUZAKITIS, Y. 2011. The dynamics of industrial symbiosis:

a proposal for a conceptual framework based upon a comprehensive literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 1773-1776.

BOWKER, G. & STAR, S. L. 1999. Sorting Things Out, Cambridge, MA / London, MIT Press. BRAUNGART, M., MCDONOUGH, W. & BOLLINGER, A. 2007. Cradle-to-cradle design:

creating healthy emissions–a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 1337-1348.

BRUNSSON, N. & JACOBSSON, B. 2000. The contemporary expansion of standardization. A World of Standards, 1, 1-17.

BRUNSSON, N., RASCHE, A. & SEIDL, D. 2012. The dynamics of standardization: Three perspectives on standards in organization studies. Organization Studies, 33, 613-632.

BSI. 2018a. The rise of the Circular Economy: BS 8001 - A new standard is available [Online]. London: British Standards Organisation. Available: https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/standards/benefits-of-using-standards/becoming-more-sustainable-with-standards/BS8001-Circular-Economy/ [Accessed March 27th 2018].

BSI. 2018b. What is a standard? & What does it do? [Online]. British Standards Institute. Available: https://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/standards/Information-about-standards/what-is-a-standard/ [Accessed March 27th 2018].

BUSCH, L. 2000. The moral economy of grades and standards. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 273-283.

CASHORE, B. 2002. Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non–state market–driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule–making authority. Governance, 15, 503-529.

CETINA, K. K. 2013. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science, Elsevier.

CETINA, K. K. & MULKAY, M. 1983. Science Observed: Perspectives on the social study of science, SAGE Publications Ltd.

DEMORTAIN, D., 2017. Expertise, regulatory science and the evaluation of technology and risk: Introduction to the Special Issue. Minerva, 55(2), pp.139-159.

DU, Z. 2016. Planning framework of the circular economy eco-city. Open House nternational, 41, 71-75.

Economist. 2017. Why China is sick of foreign garbage. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/08/21/why-china-is-sick-of-foreign-garbage, 21st Aug

EC 2015. Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions - Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe. Brussels: European Commission.

EMF 2012. Towards the Circular Economy Vol. 1: an economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Cowes: Ellen Macarthur Foundation

FOUCAULT, M. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York: Pantheon.

GEELS, F. & SCHOT, J. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399-417.

34

GHISELLINI, P., CIALANI, C. & ULGIATI, S. 2016. A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11-32.

GREGSON, N., CRANG, M., FULLER, S., & HOLMES, H. (2015). Interrogating the circular economy: the moral economy of resource recovery in the EU. Economy and Society, 44(2), 218-243.

GUÉNEAU, S., 2018. Neoliberalism and the emergence of private sustainability initiatives: the case of the Brazilian cattle value chain. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(2), 240-251.

HENSON, S. & HUMPHREY, J. 2009. The impacts of private food safety standards on the food chain and on public standard-setting processes. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Thirty-second Session. Rome: FAO Headquarters.

HEYNEN, N., MCCARTHY, J., PRUDHAM, S. & ROBBINS, P. 2007. Neoliberal environments: false promises and unnatural consequences, Routledge.

HOMRICH, A. S., GALVÃO, G., ABADIA, L. G., & CARVALHO, M. M. 2017. The Circular Economy Umbrella: Trends and Gaps on Integrating Pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 525-543.

ISO. 2018. All about ISO [Online]. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Available: https://www.iso.org/about-us.html [Accessed Mar 27th 2018].

JIAO, W. & BOONS, F. 2014. Toward a research agenda for policy intervention and facilitation to enhance industrial symbiosis based on a comprehensive literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 67, 14-25.

KEMP, R. 1994. Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability: the problem of technological regime shifts. Futures, 26, 1023-1046.

KIRCHHERR, J., REIKE, D. & HEKKERT, M. 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221-232.

KORHONEN, J., NUUR, C., FELDMANN, A. & BIRKIE, S. E. 2018. Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 544-552.

LATOUR, B. & WOOLGAR, S. 2013. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

LOCONTO, A. 2017. Models of assurance: Diversity and standardization of modes of intermediation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 670(1), 112-132.

LOCONTO, A. and DEMORTAIN, D., 2017. Standardization as Spaces of Diversity. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 382-392.

LOCONTO, A., & FOUILLEUX, E. 2014. Politics of private regulation: ISEAL and the shaping of transnational sustainability governance. Regulation & Governance, 8(2), 166-185.

MARSDEN, T., LEE, R., FLYNN, A. & THANKAPPAN, S. 2009. The new regulation and governance of food: beyond the food crisis?, Routledge.

MARX, A. WOUTERS, J. 2014, Competition and Cooperation in the Market of Voluntary Sustainability Standards, Working Paper No. 135, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, KU Leuven

MCDOWALL, W., GENG, Y., HUANG, B., BARTEKOVÁ, E., BLEISCHWITZ, R., TÜRKELI, S., KEMP, R. DOMÉNECH, T. 2017. Circular Economy Policies in China and Europe. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 651-661.MCDONOUGH, W. & BRAUNGART, M. 2002. Remaking the way we make things: Cradle to cradle.

MOORE, D. 2017a, Chinese Customs Using X-Ray Machines To Check All Waste Containers. CIWM Journal, 29th March

MOORE, D. 2017b,. Chinese Increase To 0.5% Out-Throw Will Be “Extremely Tough To Meet”. CIWM Journal, 21st Nov

35

MUELLER, M., DOS SANTOS, V. G. & SEURING, S. 2009. The contribution of environmental and social standards towards ensuring legitimacy in supply chain governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 509-523.

NEIDEL, T. L., & JAKOBSEN, J. B. 2013. Report on initial assessment of relevant recycling technologies. Retrieved from http://www.plastic-zero.com/media/39275/Plastic%20technologies%20catalouge%202.1%20-%20130902%20-%20rev.pdf

ORLU, I. V., LONGHURST, P. & WAGLAND, S. 2017. Beyond policies: managing solid waste in developing countries through stakeholders perspective and infrastructural development. Linnaeus Eco-Tech, 209.

OWENS, S., & COWELL, R. 2011. Land and limits: interpreting sustainability in the planning process (2nd ed.). Taylor and Francis: Routledge.

PECK, J., 2004. Geography and public policy: constructions of neoliberalism. Progress in human geography, 28(3), pp.392-405.

PECK, J., 2010. Constructions of neoliberal reason. Oxford University Press. PELLIZZONI, L. (2011). Governing through disorder: Neoliberal environmental governance

and social theory. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 795-803. PLANO CLARK, V. L. & CRESWELL, J. W. 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods

Research, Thousand Oaks, CA / London / New Delhi, Sage Publications. PONTE, S., & CHEYNS, E. 2013. Voluntary standards, expert knowledge and the

governance of sustainability networks. Global Networks, 13(4), 459-477. REUTERS 2018, https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-thailand-environment-waste/thailand-to-

ban-imports-of-high-tech-trash-plastic-waste-idUKKBN1L10RN [accessed Sept 2018].

RHYNER, C. R., SCHWARTZ, L. J., WENGER, R. B. & KOHRELL, M. G. 2017. Waste Management and Resource Recovery, Boca Raton, FL, CRC Press.

SCHEURICH, J., & MCKENZIE, K. 2008. Foucault's methodologies. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials, 3, 313-349.

SKY NEWS 2017. Dirty Business, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRQLilXLAIU [accessed Nov 12th, 2017]

TAMMEMAGI, H. Y. 1999. The Waste Crisis: landfills, incinerators, and the search for a sustainable future, Oxford University Press.

TASHAKKORI, A. & TEDDLIE, C. 2010. Sage Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, Thousand Oaks, CA / London / New Delhi, Sage Publications.

TECCHIO, P., MCALISTER, C., MATHIEUX, F. & ARDENTE, F. 2017. In search of standards to support circularity in product policies: A systematic approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 1533-1546.

TIMMERMANS, S. & EPSTEIN, S. 2010. A world of standards but not a standard world: toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 69-89.

UENO, K. 2001. Current status of home electric appliances recycling in Japan. Nihon Enerugi Gakkaishi/Journal of the Japan Institute of Energy, 80, 1100-1107.

VANEGAS, P., PEETERS, J. R., CATTRYSSE, D., TECCHIO, P., ARDENTE, F., MATHIEUX, F., DEWULF, W. & DUFLOU, J. R. 2017. Ease of disassembly of products to support circular economy strategies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

VELTE, C. J., WILFAHRT, A., MÜLLER, R., & STEINHILPER, R. (2017). Complexity in a Life Cycle Perspective. Paper presented at the The 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.

VYGOTSKY, L. 1934/1987. Myshlenie i rech': Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya [Thinking and speech: Psychological investigations]. In: RIEBER, R. & CARTON, A. (eds.) The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume 1 - Problems of General Psychology. New York: Plenum.

WANG, X. J., HSU, P. H., ZHOU, R. & SU, H. L. Activating eco-city in China: The system engineering for cities' green transition. 2011.

36

i Web of Science specialises in social science. Scopus is more comprehensive with the natural sciences. Google Scholar data was not considered reliable enough for this study.